[¶1]
The mother of Landon S. appeals from a judgment of the
District Court (Rockland, Sparaco, J.) terminating
her parental rights to Landon pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv)
(2016).[1] She challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the judgment and the courts discretionary
determination of the childs best interest. Specifically, the
mother argues that the Department of Health and Human
Services did not comply with 22 M.R.S. §4041 (2016) and
that the court did not "consider any positive aspects of
the [m]others efforts to reunify." We affirm the
judgment.

[¶2]
Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found,
by clear and convincing evidence, that the mother is
unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and
these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time
which is reasonably calculated to meet his needs; she is
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child
within a time reasonably calculated to meet his needs; and
she has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate
and reunify with the child. See 22 M.R.S. §4055
(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), (iv); In re Robert S, 2009 ME
18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d 894. It also found that termination
of the mothers parental rights is in the childs best
interest. See 22 M.R.S. §4055 (1)(B)(2)(a);
In re Robert S.,2009 ME 18, ¶ 15, 966 A.2d
894. The court based this determination on the following
findings of fact:

[The Department] became involved with [the mother] on
February 20, 2016[, ] after it was notified by staff at Pen
Bay Hospital that [the child was] born with marijuana in his
system, and that [the mother] had told staff that she had
been using Vicodin and alcohol during her pregnancy.

. . . [The child] has been in [Department] custody for over
one year. Throughout this case, he has lived with resource
parents ... with whom he has bonded. . . . [The childs]
placement... is safe and appropriate.

. . . [The child] was born with a nasal condition that
affects his breathing. He has had one surgery and likely will
have to have more surgeries. [His resource parents] have
ensured that [his] medical needs are being met and have
provided him with excellent care. [The child] needs
permanency now and [his resource parents] are prepared to
provide . . . such permanency through adoption.

[¶3]
The court further found that the mother, in violation of the
reunification plan, "has failed to maintain meaningful
contact with [the child], " has participated in the
childs medical care in a "minimal" way, "still
does not have stable or safe housing, " has lost access
to the transportation services provided to her by the
Department due to her "no shows, " "has not
followed through with substance abuse and mental health
counseling, " and "continues to struggle with
substance abuse."[2] The court also found that the mothers
testimony regarding her participation in Alcoholics Anonymous
was not credible.

[¶4]
Given these findings and the courts other specific findings
of fact, all of which are supported by competent evidence in
the record, the court did not err in its unfitness
determination nor did it err or abuse its discretion in
determining that termination of the mothers parental rights,
with a permanency plan of adoption, is in the childs best
interest. See In re Thomas H.,2005 ME 123,
¶¶ 16-17, 889 A.2d 297.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;5]
The mother contends that the courts findings are nevertheless
unsupported by the record because the Department failed to
provide her with "all of the services it was required to
provide, " which, she claims, would have enabled her to
"continue[] on a positive path to alleviate
jeopardy." To the contrary, the record shows that the
Department developed a reunification plan that clearly
outlined the safety goals and services the mother needed to
engage in, offered the mother ample reunification services,
[3] and
made a good faith effort to cooperate with and seek the
participation of the mother throughout these proceedings.
See 22 M.R.S. § 4041. Despite the Departments
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.